News & Discussion: Height Limits

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2670
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#331 Post by Ho Really » Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:31 am

Wayno wrote:...Question: how does Brisbane CBD's height above sea level compare to the Adelaide CBD?
Without even doing a search I guessed Brisbane as lower than Adelaide. I worked this out by looking at the Brisbane River and how it flows in comparison to our Torrens (when it has water). In the end curiosity took over... Brisbane's elevation above sea level is 28.4 metres.

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#332 Post by Wayno » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:10 pm

Ho Really wrote:
Wayno wrote:...Question: how does Brisbane CBD's height above sea level compare to the Adelaide CBD?
Without even doing a search I guessed Brisbane as lower than Adelaide. I worked this out by looking at the Brisbane River and how it flows in comparison to our Torrens (when it has water). In the end curiosity took over... Brisbane's elevation above sea level is 28.4 metres.

Cheers
well we immediately lose ~25metres of "building height comparison" to Brisbane as Adelaide CBD is 50m above sea level, and our airport is 6m above sea level (Brisbane airport is 3m)...
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
skyliner
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: fassifern (near Brisbane)

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#333 Post by skyliner » Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:40 pm

Thanks Omi. Wayno and Ho Really.

So (1)it seemingly comes down to a smaller actual distance from the CBD causing the height restrictions we observe here. (2) Relevant to PAN-OPS,as has been said, Bris CBD is very low in elevation and so gains some bldg height as result. Do these two factors explain the 289 vs 135m difference however. Also, as stated above, Brisbane still seems remarkable clear - 'anomelies'?

VERY interesting exposures about OUR restrictions guys. More 'anomelies'?

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE
Jack.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5790
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: No more height restrictions in Adelaide?!

#334 Post by Will » Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:04 pm

Edgar wrote:
Will wrote:
Edgar wrote:Lifting height restriction is one thing, putting restriction on building design must be highly taken into consideration as well. At this stage of development in Adelaide with Urban Construct infested design, I am not into lifting the height restriction any further. If they are going to build these ugly buildings all along, I would love to have a 50M limit imposed for each of the them.

Until someone can produce architectural designs that can match the 20-22 Currie St, or even better, then we can talk about lifting height restriction.
I am under the impression that if you increase height limits you also increase the value of the land, as it can potentially deliver you more profits. As such, the reason why so mnay of our new buildings are boxy and bland may indeed be due to the severe height limitations imposed, which limits the profits that a developer can make. As such in order to make a decent return, the develoeprs have to sacrifice architectural interest.
Architectural design of a building can return a high demand in interest, which is also, another way to increase the value. My sister is a well known architect currently working in UAE, although there are no height restriction being applied in those emirates, there are however importance being placed on its mid-rise buildings as they need to look good too.

A simple angle adjustment of a building can make a lot of difference, every new buildings build currently do not have to have its angle corner matching the angle corner of the street. The reason why many people still likes the Westpac building despite its age is because it wasn't build with a square design, it hasn't got a flat north-facing facade, nor is south facade, they are all angled slightly to the east.

As plain and flat the Wespac building is, with its slight angle facades actually makes it stand out more, it gives the skyline a slightly different looks to it. Not every building in Adelaide should have each of its corner facing only North-South-East-West, and is a trend I am seeing right now.

The reason why all our new buildings are boxes that take up the entire site is also due to the height restrictions. Because the height restrictions are so severe, in order to maximise the amount of space possible in a development, developers have to take up the entire site. And in Adelaide, due to Colonel Light's design for the CBD, most plots are square shaped.

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#335 Post by Omicron » Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:34 pm

skyliner wrote:Thanks Omi. Wayno and Ho Really.

So (1)it seemingly comes down to a smaller actual distance from the CBD causing the height restrictions we observe here. (2) Relevant to PAN-OPS,as has been said, Bris CBD is very low in elevation and so gains some bldg height as result. Do these two factors explain the 289 vs 135m difference however. Also, as stated above, Brisbane still seems remarkable clear - 'anomelies'?

VERY interesting exposures about OUR restrictions guys. More 'anomelies'?

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE
A list is in order, I think.

In Brisbane's favour:
Airport further away from the CBD.
CBD closer to sea level.
No PANS-OPS restrictions over the CBD.
No apparent CBD development plan imposing height restrictions separate from OLS or PANS-OPS restrictions.
Precedent for multiple OLS-breaching buildings having been approved.

There are probably other factors, too, but those are just the few that popped into my head to begin with. Even without knowing for sure the exact data, our airport is closer to the CBD and both are further above sea-level, our city council maintains a particularly strict and highly-specific set of height restrictions with only one building having ever successfully breached them, and our CBD PANS-OPS restrictions are much, much less generous. One factor in isolation does not necessarily explain the 289/135 paradox, but the combination of them all is a very different story.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: No more height restrictions in Adelaide?!

#336 Post by monotonehell » Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:02 am

Will wrote:The reason why all our new buildings are boxes that take up the entire site is also due to the height restrictions. Because the height restrictions are so severe, in order to maximise the amount of space possible in a development, developers have to take up the entire site. And in Adelaide, due to Colonel Light's design for the CBD, most plots are square shaped.
Playing Devil's advocate :twisted: How do you then explain all the developments going up that could be higher according to the height restrictions, but still continue to be relatively squat? I think you'll find that buildings tend to be designed square for the maximising profit$ reason you mentioned, but height is an altogether different argument based on the developer's estimation of how much floor space the market will bear without affecting the supply side of the economic model (thus reducing the price the developer can expect to receive).
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#337 Post by Wayno » Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:59 am

Omicron wrote:
skyliner wrote:Thanks Omi. Wayno and Ho Really.

So (1)it seemingly comes down to a smaller actual distance from the CBD causing the height restrictions we observe here. (2) Relevant to PAN-OPS,as has been said, Bris CBD is very low in elevation and so gains some bldg height as result. Do these two factors explain the 289 vs 135m difference however. Also, as stated above, Brisbane still seems remarkable clear - 'anomelies'?

VERY interesting exposures about OUR restrictions guys. More 'anomelies'?

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE
i think the biggest anomoly is the fact that the "maximum height rules" for Adelaide are only know by a select few techo boffins at CASA, AAL, DOTARS, etc...Publishing the rules in layterms for Developers to see would go a long way to resolving the issue. This should be a high priority task for the Govt DAC.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4871
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#338 Post by Howie » Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:13 am

Wayno wrote: i think the biggest anomoly is the fact that the "maximum height rules" for Adelaide are only know by a select few techo boffins at CASA, AAL, DOTARS, etc...Publishing the rules in layterms for Developers to see would go a long way to resolving the issue. This should be a high priority task for the Govt DAC.
Absolutely, most of the developers i've spoken to consider this a shambles of a system where no-one knows what the true maximum permissible height is. We need clear guidelines for future growth.

User avatar
skyliner
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: fassifern (near Brisbane)

Re: Proposal to Lift CBD Height Restrictions Defeated

#339 Post by skyliner » Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:12 pm

Yes Howie, this indeed would be a deterrent to development - many developers would know about this through experience and are no doubt rather disgruntled as a result, giving Adelaide a bad name also. Long and arduous processes like this cost money as well. This begs the question, WHY has it not been clarified in 'layman's' terms with easy accessability (if development is so strongly desired)? One hopes the DAC will do something about this.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE
Jack.

User avatar
shiftaling
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Modbury

Re: No more height restrictions in Adelaide?!

#340 Post by shiftaling » Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:17 pm

Continuing off topic, but I have to say that the Westpac building looks fantastic looking from the west on most nights with a good sunset. Orientation might have something to do with it

Jim
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:46 pm
Location: North Adelaide

Re: No more height restrictions in Adelaide?!

#341 Post by Jim » Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:25 pm

I have added a floors counter attachment to the “crane counter” thread. We currently have an amazing 234 floors under construction in Adelaide and in total of 718 in application, approval, and construction stages. It’s a shame that council/government don't bang some developers heads together to jointly work on some taller buildings of greater architectural merit.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests